Mohammad Hidayatullah Quotes

...we need not shed tears over what has happened and we can look forward – not be forward looking, but look forward – to an era which will be as good as the one which has gone before.

In the most inalienable of such rights a distinction must be made between possession of a right and its exercise. The first is fixed and the latter controlled by justice and necessity.

I chose the title of the book from Oliver Wendel Holme’s subtitle to his Aristocrat of the Breakfast Table; Every man His own Boswell. I was a miscellanist before I attempted a full length book. I learnt the art of narration from Boswell. After all even Macaulay, in spite of many hard things he said of Boswell, did acknowledge that he was the first of biographers and the world has since considered him the greatest.

If a Judge, without any reason, orders the members of say one political party out of his Court, those so ordered may seek to enforce their fundamental rights against him and it should make no difference that the order is made while he sits as a Judge. Even if appeal lies against such an order, the defect on which relief can be claimed, is the breach of fundamental rights.

There is no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than the one that no act of Courts should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of Courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake.

Law and order represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents security of State. It is then easy to see that an Act may affect law and order but not public order, just as an act may affect public order but not security of the State.

I spoke in debates arranged by the Indian students in London and once V.K.Krishna Menon opposed me. The debate concerned the role of Asia in world affairs and I used the word Asiatic. Menon raised a laugh against me by saying that he did not like the word because it rhymed with ‘lunatic’ although I should consider myself free to use it. He advised me to use the word ‘Asian’ instead. When my turn came for reply, I thanked him for his advice but preferred to stick to the Asiatics adding that he had no objection of Menon calling an Asian although the word rhymed with ‘Simian’. This brought the house down and even Menon joined in the laughter and clapping.

He was one of the few judges who could occasionally poke fun at himself. He told me that once he was sitting at a dinner at the Cambridge University where a number of distinguished persons had been invited. Next to him was an elderly gentleman whose identity he did not know. There was some discussion about the theory of relativity and he aired his own views with a certain measure of authority. His neighbour told him that his views were interesting and invited him for a cup of tea in the next two or three days. Later on he found out that he had been talking to the world renowned physicist Sir Arthur Eddington who was reputed as one of the few persons apart from Einstein who understood the theory of relativity. He never picked up the courage to go for that cup of tea and face Sir Arthur Eddington.

This was an attempt of not creating 'forward looking judges' but the 'judges looking forward' to the plumes of the office of Chief Justice.

Naipaul is sui generis. But many other Indians are cast in that mould, Indians in their basic culture though their high culture is western.

During his long tenure in the Supreme Court, he was a party to and author of a number of landmark judgments.

He had been an extremely thorough and patient Judge with unremitting industry and keen sense to discover truth and do justice. Law, liberty and justice were upheld with consummate ability and independence by His Lordship. On public controversies, some of his judgments are thought provoking. He disputed the correctness of any attempt to whittle down fundamental rights while making it clear that the right to property was not forever sacrosanct. The distinction between the law and order and the public order, has been brought out succinctly in his reported judgments.

In his leading majority judgment in Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India (AIR 1971 SC 530), popularly known as Privy Purse case, he held that the Order of the President directing that Madhavrao Scindia would cease to be recognised as the Ruler of Gwalior on and with effect from the date of the said order was ultra virus. This declaration of law resulted in restoration of the Privy Purses received by the Rulers and also ensured continuance of their personal privileges.

He was a warm and friendly person who could mix with one and all on even terms.

In Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1968 SC 881), he declared the law on the subject as to when a book can be regarded as obscene. The Judgment laid down important tests of obscenity and their application to the well-known book "Lady Chatterley's Lover" written by Lawrence shows his deep insight into law and literature.